June 13, 2005

We invited the embedded readers from last year's APME conference in Louisville to comment on the use of anonymous sources and last week's A.P. story on the results of the editor survey. Here's what several had to say:

 Oscar S. Lizardi, Tucson, Ariz.: The issue is really about credibility of the newspaper and the reporter. If the reporter citing to the anonymous source is Bob Woodward or George Will, then I don't have an issue. If it is someone else, then I am not so sure. The big question is the reason behind the policy. If the reason is wanting the story to be accurate, then maybe there are other policies that would satisfy that goal. It seems the "mission" of the paper or the reporter is to report accurate information that is "news". All policies regarding reporting should facilitate that "mission". History has shown that "anonymous" source are valuable and serve a function in reporting accurate news. It seems unreasonable to have a blanket policy that prohibits this use.

I think the problem is the "accuracy of the report". This issue has arisen because newspapers/reporters are getting stories wrong. If you want to solve this problem, you should ask why are reporters getting stories wrong. It seems over the last few years that reporting is not about getting the story right as opposed to getting the story out first. To the extent this exists, then it is a systemic problem. The above policy regarding "anonymous" sources does not address the real problem. The result is a Band-Aid. Six months for now the problem will still exist. If you have a systemic problem, then you need to fix the system at the top and carefully review the message that editors and publishers are sending to their reporters.

 Anne Glavan, Gales Ferry, Conn.: Thanks for the opportunity to speak up. If you had asked me about anonymous sources a year ago, I would have responded (without much thought) that I didn't think they were a good idea. The events of this past month have caused me to reflect more on their use. The Newsweek problem, on the abuse of the Quran, initially reinforced my opinion. When Mark Felt came forward last week I reversed my opinion. I agree now with the position of the Seattle Times' David Boardman.

Use of an anonymous source shouldn't be an easy thing for a newspaper to do. The first test should be is it IMPORTANT? Can we get this any other way? If the answers are yes and then no, then their internal review/investigation of the source should be thorough. It should be as complete as the information is compelling.

I think the stand of the Jackson, Mich., Citizen Patriot, is too absolute. They may have a story that would require an anonymous source very rarely or nearly never, but by not telling that story they are doing a disservice to their readers.

Anonymous sources should be used only for hard news, not gossip. The stories should be ones regarding public health and safety or crimes against the community.

 Catherine Griggs, St. Petersburg, Fla.: I have been thinking about how different US history's course might have been without Deep Throat. I believe there is a place in news reporting for anonymous sources, provided that the story has a compelling regional or national interest, and the information can only be obtained in this manner. I am assuming that several editors would evaluate the importance of the information and the need to keep the identity of the informant secret. Under these circumstances, the relevance of the issue to the public knowledge outweighs the issue of secrecy.